Stateless Legal Order - 1

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Maximatic, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The question was about the necessity of taxation. A "state" is an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and/or the power to tax.

    This will take more than a paragraph. The first thing to understand is that there is no "plan" to explain. Solutions are arrived at in a natural economy, even with state interference, by disparate individuals trading with one another voluntarily. They are dividing labor among them when they trade, so that each actor provides one thing or one part of one thing. We can't predict who will try to offer which solutions to which problems or whether enough people will prefer a given solution over another solution, or over no "solution", to sustain its provision. What we can predict(there is actually nothing we can do to prevent it) is that, if there is a demand for something that can be provided, that demand will be met by a supply.

    I'm not sure you appreciate the scope of that question. You're not just asking about law enforcement. You're asking about law itself, which is a much harder question than law enforcement. But you're also asking about a transition (you said "But let's say we ended tax-supported law enforcement", which sounds to me like it was ended suddenly(which is a particular variable of a transition)), which is another question altogether.
    Transition from a state to a stateless order is such a different question from what an entrenched stateless order could look like that it doesn't make sense to try and discuss them together.

    We assume the laws of supply and demand, so, if there is a demand for a service, suppliers will compete to satisfy it. There is no demand for enforcement of laws against the state, so a stateless legal order would not look very much like like it does under a state. Since it can't be bought or sold, there is no demand, in an economic sense, for law itself. Law is inevitable. Legislation is not the only way for it to be brought about. Law evolves as disputes are resolved to form a body of law. English Common Law and Roman Civil Law are examples of emergent bodies of law that evolved that way. Most "Civil Law" in the US is such emergent law inherited from those traditions (mostly English Common Law), codified.

    There is a demand for dispute resolution. There is a demand for security. There is a demand for investigative services. There is a demand for risk mitigation.

    The way it works now is, if you're insured against burglary, you call the police first because your insurance company will want a police report to establish that your house has been burglarized, the police will take their copy of that report and "file it", and the insurance company would indemnify you, probably after you pay a policy deductible. In a stateless order you would probably call your insurance company first, probably after you pay a deductible, they would indemnify you for your loss and pay to have the scene investigated. Being on the hook for your loss, they have an interest in finding the thief and your stuff if they can. So, if they find the potential for recovery great enough to warrant further investigation, they would pay for it. If the thief is not found, the matter dies there, of course.

    If the thief is found, your insurance company would probably want to know if he has liability insurance(insuring others against damage caused by him). Such insurance would likely be required by employers and anyone else with whom one might contract. Many land owners would probably have standing policies against allowing the uninsured on their property. Your insurance company would then probably query other insurance companies for any such active policy held by him. If they find one, they would notify that company that they will be pursuing a judgment against him from an arbitration agency trusted by both insurance companies. He would be notified and invited to present a defense, and his insurance company would have a financial interest in helping with that defense. If the arbitration agency finds against him, his insurance company would then cover all expenses incurred by you(your deductible for instance) and your insurance company and notify him of his policy cancellation and offer him a new, more expensive policy.

    Since he's out breaking into houses, he probably doesn't have insurance, in which case your insurance company may pursue him, personally. Depending on the law recognized by arbitration agencies people and companies in the area go by, they might have him apprehended by something like a debtor's prison where he would do something productive until everyone affected by his crime, including the debtor's prison, is paid of. That debtor's prison would, of course, want a judgment from an arbitration agency recognized by any entity that may pursue them for damages on behalf of the thief before they use force against him. They may even insist on multiple judgments from different arbitration agencies, covering all their bases.

    Such (What should we call it when you pay them on a one-time basis, a la carte? sure) a la carte services would probably be available to the unprepared, but the most valuable service available to the victim of a hit-and-run is not police, but insurance. The biggest role police play in the process now is that of providing commonly accepted piece of evidence that a given insurance claim is valid. In a stateless legal order, such a function would be served by some other kind of agency, probably one specializing in investigative services. I don't know if what you read of Threat Management Center inspired this scenario, but the bulk of their receipts seem to come from contractual arrangements with clients who want constant monitoring. Those clients(and anyone they authorize to request service) could call and have guards(or investigators) at a scene in a matter of seconds without effecting additional fees.

    Not all poor people need police "service". Many(most?) police "service" wherein poor people are involved is not demanded by anyone other than a state. There would obviously be no such demand in a stateless legal order. A business dedicated to providing the few useful services provided by police (eg: put the occasional drunk in check or defuse a heated dispute between spouses) could be provided for about $20 per subscriber per month. It's unlikely, though, that the provision of such useful services would take the same form in a stateless legal order as the that which their socialized provision takes under a state.

    Where on Earth did you get that idea?

    People would pay to insure others against damage caused by them if the more established members of society require it as a prerequisite for doing business with them. People without such insurance could still operate in such a legal order, only with a limited range of options for interaction. The uninsured would not be seen as trustworthy, so they would have to pay their way as they go and avoid causing damage to others.

    To compare this list,

    , to necessary services as we can expect to see them in a stateless legal order is like comparing apples to oranges. Some of them presuppose a state, and the way they are arranged(these items on the same list) seems to confuse one service for which there is a demand with other services.

    The better approach would be to think of sustainable business models for the provision of each service for which there would be a demand in the absence of a state. When we do that, we come up with things that look more like the insurance based systems described by Bob Murphy in Chaos Theory or those described in David Friedman's work or the Brehon legal system of ancient Ireland, on all of which this list,

    - Patrol and deterrence [security eg: Threat Management Center]

    - Emergency response to in-progress crimes or threats to public safety [security]

    - Traffic crash response [ambulance, tow truck, pencil pusher to make report of crash]

    - Crime investigation, from minor crimes to major crimes to murder [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]]

    - Forensics [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]]

    - Evidence collection and storage [investigative [insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]]

    - 911, Communications [really? you think we can't communicate in the free market? we made Verizon, and the iPhone]

    - Records [everybody keeps records. criminal records would probably consist claim history, not just claims on policies held by a given individual but any claim caused by that individual.]

    - County jail [there is no county in a stateless society. if structures are necessary to hold criminals temporarily, they're not hard to build. they could be added by by those providing security services, or by another specialist. either way, insurance companies would probably be their main clientele]

    - Courtrooms [dispute resolution - again, structures are not hard to build]

    - Judges [dispute resolution], Prosecutors[a prosecutor is any attorney dedicated to arguing the case for the state. in a stateless society, you would just have attorneys for the plaintiff and attorneys for the accused], Defense attorneys[state-sponsored defense attorneys are a way in which monopolies by a single party on law, dispute resolution, and law enforcement can be made more palatable to one accused by that party. there is no such monopolist in a stateless legal order, and far fewer restrictions on who may act as an attorney.], clerks [do I really need to address "clerks"?]

    - Prisons [prisons can be sustained without a state if prisoners pay for their existence, either by work done for the institution or by paying rent from another income source [this last would be part of arrangements made voluntarily by the criminals themselves as an avenue by which to reenter civil society]]

    - Probation and Parole [I doubt these things would exist in a stateless legal order]

    - Appellate and Supreme Courts [there are myriad competing dispute resolution agencies in a stateless order offering plenty of opportunity for appeals]

    , is not a very useful or relevant way of compiling them.

    When I point out that you could think of successful business models by which some of these services could be provided, it's not to shift my burden of proof onto you, but to remind you that what we're doing here is not describing any overall plan. To provide services on a voluntary basis, we have to think as entrepreneurs, not as kings. Entrepreneurs see demand and make educated guesses as to how to satisfy it. Some of them get it right, but most of them don't. As you may have heard 80% of all startups fail within 18 months. Those who get something right do so insofar as what they provide is something that others are willing to voluntarily part with their own resources to obtain. IOW, they provide something useful to society. It's not likely that one person will imagine or pick all of the models that will be accepted by the various markets is a given society. I don't expect you to actually come up with any viable, or even apparently viable, models. I just hope I've made clear the point of what we're actually trying to do.

    Just to bring this back into perspective, the initial question was about the necessity of taxation. Taxation, as the forcible expropriation of all producers in a society, is not some kind of metaphorical "baby" to be saved from some metaphorical "bathwater". Pointing to services not essential to civil society can never show that taxation is necessary. At best, it shows a preference, on the part of the speaker, for such services or for them to be provided in such a manner. Everything on that list is currently available on voluntary basis, so there is no question about the possibility of their provision without taxation. The only interesting questions remaining are those of what their provision would look like in the absence of a provider that forcibly expropriates consumers as well as non-consumers to finance their provision.

    I have obliged for this post, but your request of "no links" is very inappropriate for a couple of reasons:
    Most people, justifiably, want sources for empirical claims, the truth of which is not obvious.
    On entering an academic field, one does not begin by trying to figure everything out for himself or by asking one person to divulge all that has been contributed to that line of inquiry, but by reading those known for having contributed to it, so you shouldn't be surprised, or resist, when we refer you to contributions that we have already read. I don't mind giving a synopsis of a contribution of which I am familiar, but reproducing it in a post is pointless.

    We haven't touched on defense against invasion, but there should be plenty of questions and objections to what has already been said. If we could leave defense for another thread, that would be great.
     
  2. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Jack is a murderer. He shot Jill in the head during a quarrel with her over whether she slept with Joe.

    Two days after the killing, Jane, Jill's mom, finds Jill's body at Jill's home.

    Upon regaining her composure, Jane calls her own security agency, Protect.

    Protect dispatches three agents, one of them a detective (they keep several detectives on call at all times), to the scene.

    They arrive and, upon verifying the security of the scene, the detective begins to record the scene and collect evidence while the other two stay with Jane.

    Satisfied with what he has from the scene at the moment, the detective turns to Jane in search of information on anyone in Jill's life who may have had a motive and on any insurance policies or relevant contracts Jill may have had. He doesn't bother to tell her that collecting evidence and recording the scene isn't technically his responsibility (Protect has no contract with Jill) for two reasons. 1) He's not an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). 2) The same reason the ambulance is about to arrive and transport the body to where the likely cause of death will be determined: The emergency transport service, the hospital, and the forensics lab where Protect will send some of the collected evidence, have all done studies and found out that they end up getting paid often enough that it's in their best interest to act in such situations where there is no guarantee of payment, especially where a crime appears to have been committed.

    In this case, it turns out that Jill, herself, has no insurance policies and no security or protection contracts of any kind.

    The detective already suspects Jack, but doesn't move on him yet other than to have his movement monitored from a distance.

    Upon learning the time of death from the medical examiner, the detective returns to Jill's apartment complex to interview her neighbors. After a while, he comes in contact with a woman who saw Jack pulling out of the parking lot as she was arriving home from work which happens to usually be within about 1 minute after the time Jill died.

    After that and getting the results of the lab work, the detective feels confident that he can get a judgment against Jack, who he already knows has no liability insurance. Protect sends several agents to collect Jack whether he wants to come along or not.

    Jack is detained by Protect until Decide, the dispute resolution agency, hears the case. Decide finds against Jack.

    Jack doesn't like it, but he is sent to Extract, something like a debtor's prison, where it will take him about 25 years to pay back Protect, Decide, Extract, lab, medical transport, medical examiner, funeral home, and the bulk of what he owes which is to Jill's next of kin, Jane.
     
  3. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While interacting on the internet with others, I occasionally use links to give credibility to facts that I state. For example, if I say that 17% of federal expenditures go to defense, I may give a link that proves it so the reader doesn't think I just made the number up. The reasons I asked you not to give links are several ... For one, I am already somewhat familiar with the philosophy you are talking about. I am 61, and I have been an observer of politics and interested in political thought for a long time. I have interacted with folks who believe as you do before. My own father is what I would categorize as an "extreme libertarian". So I'm not really on this board to get referred to an hour-long video or some author's book, but to just interact with people. One thing I've learned is that in respectful discussion, our beliefs get challenged. This is a good thing because it forces us test what we believe against the challenge posed by an opposing view. I can tell you that it took a while to truly appreciate the value of that. The value of that is the evolution of thought it can bring about. It also adds depth. We have all seen and heard people who hold strong views on something but who have no way to defend a challenge to their thoughts because, frankly, they have never really allowed their beliefs to be tested. Or it may not be that they won't allow it as much as they've just never given themselves the chance by seeking contrarian views, seeking only validation from others of like mind. I'm probably going on too long, but here is just one example ... A view is expressed that the U.S. ought to invade Syria on the ground, depose the Assad regime, and stay there until a new nation is built. There are two questions I can ask that send those folks into an intellectual tailspin. I know it does because of the silence I get in return. (1) There will be casualties. Would you be willing to give up your child for Syria?, for that is what you're asking other parents to do. (2) Would you agree to raising your taxes to pay for this? In either case, I am asking the person if they would personally sacrifice something (a child, money) for this cause. And I realize by their silence that they have never thought of war that way. Perhaps, in some small way, I have given them a little something to test their view. By the same token, my views have evolved, in part through interaction with others, even to the present. The other parts are an awareness of history, experience and maturation. They all play a part.

    So, I don't think what you wrote is pointless.

    Oh sure ... There are questions and objections. Let's see if I can run down a few and, at the same time, keep this reply concise. We'll see about that.

    I think "states" are formed for many reasons, though - common culture, common religion, common defense, common economy, common language, natural resources within an area, natural barriers. Human beings survive on this planet through organization, collaboration, and cooperation with each other for the good of the many. Unlike a male leopard for example, that leads a solitary existence except briefly to procreate, we need to be in organized groups, or we don't survive. Even in the U.S., where there is instant communication and advanced transportation systems and an integrated economy, we see this natural desire to identify with the local smaller group and to organize it to our liking. Two similarly-sized towns sitting right next to each other may have different ordinances and different taxes because that's the way the people's of those two towns want things to be in their respective towns. Same thing with counties and states. So I think what I am trying to say is that the formation of "states" is natural and normal for human beings. They have been doing it since the dawn of human beings on this planet in one form or the other. (Tribes were a form of "states") And the reason they have been doing it is not to coerce, but to survive and to collaborate for the common good. And so, when you speak of a "stateless order", it brings to mind a system that won't work for human beings. At the same time, you are not really talking about a stateless order, but a different order that has some major commonalities with our present order through governments. For example, the stateless order does submit the individual to the will of the majority for the common good, and it very definitely costs money. It may be called "stateless" because it is not run by government, but its effect is the same. Taxation is not required, but billing for service is. And of course, most of the billing would be ongoing, just as taxes are, which is another commonality.

    I also wanted to comment on this ...

    Those words kind of jumped out at me. Now it is true that history is replete with examples of malevolent, dictatorial governments simply expropriating the goods or money of its citizens in a wanton, random, malicious way. This is accomplished through direct force, where the one being removed of his goods or wealth has no recourse and no voice whatsoever. Resistance resulted in death. And the taking was not for the common good, but for the good of a few.

    But our society is not taxed like that. We are taxed by a government that consists of our representatives who we chose in free elections, and our recourse is to vote them out of office if we don't agree with what they do. Now granted, in the final analysis, it comes down to majority rule. In this system you may be among those of a minority opinion, and the will of the majority (the government in place) is imposed on you against your will. But you do have the right to object, to persuade and influence, to support someone else for office, or to run for office yourself. And the vast majority agree to the fundamental things government does, and they agree to taxation for those things. What they tend to argue about is how much taxation, what form it should take (sales, property, income, user fees), and on details of how it should be spent. (Do we need a new school? Do we need a new fire truck? At what level shall we help the poor?, How much shall we spend on defense vs social programs? etc, etc) And yes, there are laws and enforcement systems making taxation compulsory or coercive. But I noticed an element of that in the model you described as well. You spoke of arbitration, but the findings of an arbiter are enforceable against your will. You mentioned the use of a form of "debtors prison" and you also wrote this:

    People would pay to insure others against damage caused by them if the more established members of society require it as a prerequisite for doing business with them. People without such insurance could still operate in such a legal order, only with a limited range of options for interaction.

    In history, this same thing would happen through "shunning" or in more extreme cases, banishment. So I would argue that there is coercion in this "stateless order" you're talking about, but it would just come at the individual in a different form. Choosing to go without insurance in a "stateless order" does not seem that different to me than tax rebels refusing to pay taxes. There are negative consequences either way, and pressure to conform to the constructs of the stateless order would be strong.

    People are not designed to thrive on their own. Even Jeremiah Johnson rode up into the Rockies on a horse that he bought from someone else who raised it, and while carrying a rifle, powder, and lead balls produced by someone else. We thrive when there is teamwork - each person contributing something to the greater good of all. Our present system depends on that. So also would your stateless order. There is no getting around that. Not that you're trying to get around that, but I am just pointing out that one way or the other, we must conform to an order, whatever it is, to survive and to thrive. That order must have some structure, and those who would abuse that order or who would prey upon others within the order, would have force of some sort applied to stop them and to preserve the order - just as we do now. In a stateless order, you have spoken of arbitration, imprisonment, and what I term as a form of shunning or banishment. All of these are coercive in nature, even arbitration because it must have a mechanism for compliance. All are consequences for going against the order.

    And finally, when speaking of taxation, what is "voluntary", and what is "forced expropriation"? I will tell you that I think how one chooses to term it depends on whether one agrees with the system or not. I do agree with our representative form of government, and, although I know there are consequences if I refuse to pay taxes, I don't really want to refuse to pay taxes. I understand what they are buying, and, fundamentally, I agree to buying those things. So although I am aware of consequences of not paying, my payment is voluntary. I am fairly certain that in a "stateless order" we would end up paying for the things we needed for the common good - defense, security, fire protection, schools, roads - but that money would be extracted from us in a different manner, but inevitably nonetheless. In a stateless order, I doubt that I could educate my children for free, nor could I use the roads for free. I would pay. I would have to or accept the consequences of not paying. You might say that I would pay voluntarily, but I assume that the consequence of not paying would be no education for my kids or no use of the roadways, in which case I couldn't make a living or even get groceries. (I wonder how that would work? Toll gates everywhere?)

    And I'll be honest with you.... I think I would prefer to have the consistency, professionalism, and predictability of certain services - like roads and schools and fire protection - rather than having a mish-mash of competing businesses all trying to sell these things to us, each one trying to underbid the other, which ultimately can have disappointing results. I'm not sure I want "the cheapest fire protection money can buy". I don't want the "cheapest road money can buy". I don't think I want to turn to some CEO of a company and try and demand accountability from him when something goes horribly wrong, for that CEO has a vested interest in his company and its reputation. By contrast, the mayor of my town has no vested personal interest in the police department. He is vested in his public service. If something is horribly wrong in the police department that I know about, I can go to the power over the police department that is accountable to me. And speaking of police, I think it very important that we keep an elected civilian power structure over our police services (security, as you call it). I am not about to turn that power over to private enterprise. I can see tremendous problems with that idea.

    OK, that's it for now. Again, I appreciate all the time and effort you put in to explaining your beliefs. Cheers! :beer:

    Seth.
     
  4. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Same scenario, but Jack is rich.

    Decide finds against Jack. Jack pays Protect and Decide for their expenses, all the miscellaneous expenses, and Jane agrees to accept $50,000 from Jack.

    Jack is free.

    A few days later, Jack sees Joe ....
     
  5. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, I think we're on the same page here. Thank you for not thinking what I wrote is pointless, and saying so. I don't see it as a reproduction of the work of another, so I don't either. I'd like to fragment this into what I see as trains of though (or points of contention). I see that you're probably not in the mood to contend right now, but that's fine; we can each, of course, respond at our leisure.

    Word
    Cheers!
     
  6. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would Jane settle for $50,000? She's very upset, to put it mildly. Don't you think Decide would agree with her, that what Jack has done entitles her to up to(perhaps including) Jack's life, which should be worth every penny and stitch he's worth and then some?

    Also, why would the detective at Decide not expect Jack to see Joe and see what Jack plans as a potential jackpot?
     
  7. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    50k, 200k, what's the difference? People settle. Maybe Jane doesn't want to get paid in little increments over decades. Maybe that lump sum now is more attractive. So she takes it, and Jack walks.

    Ha! But I think that is my contention.

    Our criminal justice system as it is now has several purposes. To deter, to punish, and to protect the public. It is not run to extract civil damage payments out of people. (There are civil proceedings for that.) It doesn't incarcerate people to get slave labor out of them to pay back society and victims. It costs $20-30,000/year to incarcerate someone. They are never going to do anything in prison that is worth that amount, much less to exceed it.

    You see, I don't care if Jack is as rich as Donald Trump and can pay millions. That outcome does not deter others, it does not punish Jack if his freedom isn't taken away, and it is not fair. What if Jack is Bill Gates' son? So Bill just pays for everything, Jane receives millions, and Jack walks. Don't you see how a system like that would favor the rich over the poor?
     
  8. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You're missing the point. She is the victim's mother. Her baby is dead, killed by Jack. She wants Jack to die. It's only the more detached people looking in from the outside(you and me, for example) who will convince her not to press for that. We(I would anyway) would tell her "Wait, Jane, you could have him killed, but why? Wouldn't it be better to have him owe you the remainder of his life? Wouldn't his fortune do you and your other children a lot of good right now? ...".

    With or without a state, these decisions will be made by real people like you and me. How would you rule as the judge or a juror representing Decide? I, for one, wouldn't even dream of letting him get off with paying some fraction of his estate. I would want him dead, but I'd leave that decision to Jane.

    There is absolutely nothing about a state that refines our common sense of justice for the better. Laws that evolved resolving disputes reflect respect for persons and their property, and contempt for those who violate such. Read the common law.

    Without the state and its political and legislative fodder, our common sense of justice, as applied to each dispute up close and personal, is all that remains.
     
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From those that support the notion of a state, I would very much like to have this question answered: Why is a state absolutely necessary? What can the state do that it is impossible for individuals or groups to accomplish?
     
  10. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a quote from myself further up the page in my discussion with Maximatic ...

    "I think "states" are formed for many reasons, though - common culture, common religion, common defense, common economy, common language, natural resources within an area, natural barriers. Human beings survive on this planet through organization, collaboration, and cooperation with each other for the good of the many. Unlike a male leopard for example, that leads a solitary existence except briefly to procreate, we need to be in organized groups, or we don't survive. Even in the U.S., where there is instant communication and advanced transportation systems and an integrated economy, we see this natural desire to identify with the local smaller group and to organize it to our liking. Two similarly-sized towns sitting right next to each other may have different ordinances and different taxes because that's the way the people's of those two towns want things to be in their respective towns. Same thing with counties and states. So I think what I am trying to say is that the formation of "states" is natural and normal for human beings. They have been doing it since the dawn of human beings on this planet in one form or the other. (Tribes were a form of "states") And the reason they have been doing it is not to coerce, but to survive and to collaborate for the common good. And so, when you speak of a "stateless order", it brings to mind a system that won't work for human beings. At the same time, you are not really talking about a stateless order, but a different order that has some major commonalities with our present order through governments. For example, the stateless order does submit the individual to the will of the majority for the common good, and it very definitely costs money. It may be called "stateless" because it is not run by government, but its effect is the same. Taxation is not required, but billing for service is. And of course, most of the billing would be ongoing, just as taxes are, which is another commonality."

    Without organization and coordination, we humans don't survive. Organization and coordination requires authority. Authority has always existed in human history, otherwise, coordination falls apart, and we don't survive. Those who either took or who were given authority to coordinate the group in a geographical area - they are "the state".

    After talking about this with Maximatic, it appears to me that you don't really advocate for a stateless order. What you're really talking about is a different configuration of "the state". But a "state" it is, nevertheless. It is not a stateless order.
     
  11. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Since you reject my definition of "state", which word would you like to use to denote an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and the power to tax? I don't care which word you choose. "Lollipop" will do, or "blarg", whatever, as long as we both know what it means.
     
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that people prosper via organization and coordination. Take for example specialization and the division of labor. By working with each other we can achieve a level of prosperity far beyond what any individual could attain.

    However, you still haven't told me what the state can do that it is impossible for individuals or groups to accomplish?
     
  13. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Max, sometimes I write so much that my point gets lost. :roll:

    It's the definition - "to denote an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and the power to tax" - that I object to. A "state" may have those claims, but it is not the purpose for its existence. Let me try ...

    State: The organization of human beings for the common good within an area, creating a structure for authority and coordination.
     
  14. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't object to this:

    "The organization of human beings for the common good within an area, creating a structure for authority and coordination"

    Which word would you like me to use to denote the following?

    "an entity with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of coercion and the power to tax"
     
  15. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely agree.

    Well Merry Christmas! By asking that question, you have probably started a discussion that will take us into 2017! Our nation provides certain things, our states provide other things, and our county/city governments provide other things. So that's a huge question, man.

    So let's start with an easy one - National defense. Can we agree that a national government - with the power to levy taxes - is the best choice for providing for a national defense?
     
  16. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Max, I would say that the "legal use of coercion" and "the power to tax" are sub-categories that fall under "structure", "authority", and "coordination".
     
  17. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, Seth.
     
  18. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I change my religion.

    I am now a statist.

    The state is awesome. Anything any state does is awesome, and I support it 100%, because the state(all of them the world over throughout history) is really me. Anything they do that I think I don't like is really the Devil trying to convince me that I don't like it, because everything they all do is really done by me.
     
  19. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, what else besides national defense is impossible for individuals or groups to accomplish?
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Max and Seth, I now suggest a special book. Like no other book I am aware of. I used to argue with the author.

    [​IMG]

     
  21. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    How would that book benefit me?
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The author naturally is not Jackey Sneeb. The author is Bill Malloy who is a brilliant thinker. Trust me, ever argument pro and con government was made during the time we both posted on the same site. I never saw Bill stumped. Bill flew the Cobra Helicopter in combat in Vietnam. He is no child. I feel fortunate he mentions me in his book in a favorable light.

    Some of Bill's concepts were difficult for me to swallow. But once you did, you had a brand new freedom to enjoy.

    One thing I do know, people do not band together to be told they lost freedom.

    I see the following video and want to throw up. And it is getting worse. I was informed I have ...here, read it yourself.


    [video=youtube;p5-5a6Q54BM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5-5a6Q54BM&t=35s[/video]

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't know you and your background but what can it hurt to read what looks like new ideas?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yeah, me too. :roflol:
     
    Maximatic likes this.
  23. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    12,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, sticking with the federal government a bit longer, how about these?

    - the three branches of government

    - federal law enforcement (FBI, Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals, Secret Service)

    - a uniform national currency
     
  24. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We would have a lot less contention Seth if the Feds stuck to what you want of them.
     
  25. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're saying that only the government can provide itself. Okay. And law enforcement. Okay.

    Not true. It is not necessary that the government provide currency. In fact, in the early years of the US, it didn't. The US used the Spanish dollar as its official currency, while making none of its own such dollars. Also, in England, currency was produced by private mints. So not absolutely necessary for a society that the government produce its currency.

    Ok, so far here's our list of things that nobody but the government can provide: the government, law enforcement.

    What else?
     

Share This Page